As a fan, it's easy to imagine the thrill of catching the game-winning pass that earns a bowl trip, the excitement of hearing your school's name being selected to the Big Dance or the pride in setting a meet record.

But what might not be so easy to imagine are the 5:30 a.m. conditioning sessions, the two-hour lab practical, the afternoon spent reading to the Boys & Girls Club, four hours of rehab time in the training room, and late-night study halls with the team.

It's those commitments, in addition to the competitions and practices, that are fueling a debate about student-athlete "time demands" and prompting everyone from presidents to assistant coaches to opine on student-athletes' behalf.

The catch is that "student-athlete" is a two-part phrase, and responsibilities for the "student" and the "athlete" are growing at equally alarming rates.

Take Liz McCaslin, volleyball student-athlete at the University of Kentucky, for example. The Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) member had a busy April. After volunteering at the Boys & Girls Club, organizing an all-sports awards show and a diversity week, reading to an elementary-school class, attending a breakfast for an organization that recognizes character in student-athletes, attending the national SAAC meeting in Indianapolis and flying to Sacramento, California, for a Congressional hearing (in her role as a SAAC member), McCaslin had little time for the so-called "normal" student demands. As the SAAC president at Kentucky, McCaslin also prepared for and ran the weekly meeting. Oh, and she practiced for and played in four spring volleyball tournaments, all while attending classes and maintaining her already high grade-point average. And that was in April, a supposedly quiet month for a fall-sports participant like McCaslin.

But McCaslin, like many student-athletes, relishes the role-model status and is equipped to handle the leadership expectations that come with it.

"Let me remind you that everything I do is because I want to, not because I have to," she said. "I understand the importance of things like community service and the role that athletes play. I want to give back."

Time-demands group created

It isn't that student-athletes don't want to participate in community service, have breakfast with the boosters or take on speaking engagements and the like, but how do they add onto a plate that's already full?

Recently, the answer from the NCAA presidential level has leaned toward considering a reduction in the playing and practice seasons. Quite naturally, college and university CEOs entrusted with providing students with the best education possible would want to protect student-athletes' academic interests at all costs, even if it meant fewer contests or less practice time. But also quite naturally, student-athletes have strongly opposed such a solution. They point to the "extracurricular" activities that come with the student-athlete territory as a culprit -- not because student-athletes disdain performing individual duties such as hosting recruits or participating in youth sports clinics, but because cumulatively, it makes for a crowded schedule.

Division I SAAC members made that point during a joint SAAC/Division I Board of Directors luncheon during the NCAA Convention in January. The Board, a group that has perhaps taken for granted that the length of the playing and practice season is to blame for the time crunch, heard a different story at that session.

SAAC members said they are asked to host recruits, give speeches and perform community service (among other activities) as requested by the coaching and athletics staffs; however, unlike matters involving competition, those activities have no time limits associated with them.

Student-athletes also identified the 20-hour-per-week rule as an area of concern. The 20-hour rule encompasses those NCAA Manual-defined countable athletically related activities such as practice, weight lifting, watching game films and competition, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the 20-hour limit is violated on many campuses.

As a result of that discussion, Division I has established a working group composed of representatives from the Division I Management Council, Championships/Competition Cabinet, and coaches and student-athletes to study the time-demands issue. This group has been charged with reviewing current legislation, developing recommendations, identifying effective educational tools and defining methods to enforce the established time limit in both the 20-hour rule and the eight-hour rule that is used for the nontraditional season.

Education a priority

Carol Reep, senior associate athletics director at Butler University and current chair of the Championships/Competition Cabinet's playing and practice seasons subcommittee, will bring some history with the issue to the group. Her subcommittee already has recommended legislative proposals that would provide student-athletes more discretionary time by limiting multisport student-athletes to 20 hours of athletically related activity per week (as opposed to 20 hours per sport) during the championship segment and requiring two days off per week during the nonchampionship season.

But like many administrators, Reep believes the 20-hour rule is where the new working group can help the most. She said that rule is an example of legislation that appears good on paper but has a different application in reality.

"Sometimes, we forget the other issues that take time but don't count toward the 20-hour limit, like career services, hosting a recruit or sportsmanship education," said Reep. "At the same time, we want student-athletes to have a complete experience both on and off the field."

From a student-athlete perspective, McCaslin is excited about the working group.

"My advice to the group would be to avoid putting too many restrictions on things such as community service," she said. "I think the issues that need to be addressed are enforcement of the (20-hour rule) and educating student-athletes about the restrictions."

Kelly Sorensen, volleyball student-athlete at Fairfield University and a member of the Division I SAAC, believes the problem isn't with the 20-hour rule per se, but rather the way it is implemented at various campuses.

"We need to work together to find ways to protect the student-athlete, because, after all, we are students first," she said. "It is important to remember that as an incoming freshman, athletes expect to spend about 20 hours a week for their sport, but it is a surprise when those 20 hours do not include team dinners with the recruit, mandatory study hall and rehab. Those hours add up."

McCaslin believes if coaches provide student-athletes with the reasons they want them to be involved in the community, student-athletes will be more willing to participate and feel better about what is expected of them. The idea that extras, such as community service, are voluntary, also must be stressed.

"There are a lot of things expected of us as athletes and we need to be aware of those expectations before we are given all these time demands," McCaslin said. "If everything is presented up front about what is expected of you and you do not receive surprises, there will be fewer problems."

Among suggestions for improving the 20-hour rule are beefing up the educational effort, perhaps with an informational packet about expectations from the classroom to the community. McCaslin agrees that a brochure and video combination clearly outlining the rules and regulations would be one clear source of education.

Bridging the trust gap

From an enforcement perspective, perhaps the easiest solution would be for student-athletes to simply report abuses of the 20-hour rule to a member of the coaching staff. But this is not a reality on many campuses.

"Student-athletes need to feel more comfortable within the athletics department to identify coaches who are exceeding the 20 hours," Sorensen said.

Indeed, the ramifications of "turning in" violators are significant. Concerns include a possible reduction in playing time or scholarships not being renewed. Some student-athletes have suggested an anonymous "drop box" procedure through which student-athletes could submit a complaint. In such a system, a designated member of the athletics department, perhaps the faculty athletics representative or a compliance coordinator, would be responsible for investigating the claim.

Perhaps even one student-athlete from each sport could work with a member of the athletics staff to report team activities on a weekly, bi-weekly or even daily basis in an anonymous capacity.

Other solutions include requiring student-athletes and coaches to fill out time sheets and then compare the results.

"The bottom line is that it's essential for student-athletes to have someone within the athletics department they can trust and are comfortable with," said Sorensen.

In many conversations so far, suggestions for that "someone" include the faculty athletics representative or the senior woman administrator, if not a member of the coaching staff.

Most FARs are not even housed within the athletics department, which can help alleviate concerns about being "noticed" while discussing a complaint.

Student-athletes also should consider the strength and conditioning coach, a CHAMPS/
Life Skills coordinator, a member of the training staff or an academic advisor, as trusted "team" members.

Those are the kinds of possibilities the time-demands working group will be mulling over in the coming months.

As for the question of whether to modify the length of the playing and practice seasons, the Board of Directors probably will have the final say. At its April meeting, Board members charged the playing and practice seasons subcommittee with identifying time-demands issues for the Board's review in August. The Board also wants supporting data from surveying not only student-athletes and coaches, but also faculty members, administrators and academic-support personnel. Additionally, the Board asked the subcommittee to gather data regarding the number of missed class days per institution by sport. The Board noted that data would not provide the answer to concerns about current playing and practice seasons, but it would provide the requisite background information to move forward.

"Moving forward" also is what the new working group will be looking to do.

"At this point, we have not even met yet, so I can't say exactly where we're headed," said Reep. "But knowing the NCAA committee structure, we will have good, healthy discussion and something good will come out of it. We have something good to work with (the legislation in place) and an opportunity to make a difference."

That difference may just be a matter of time.